We are done with the much-anticipated presidential debates. Apart from the logistical, organisational and aesthetic success, were they worth the hype?

All candidates had their moments, but no one dominated in terms of skill, knowledge and eloquence.

In the second debate, Martha Karua stuck to legalism to avoid the question of her overzealous support of the Kibaki regime when she was justice minister. Of particular focus was her role in the partisan choice of commissioners of the defunct Electoral Commission of Kenya that messed up the 2007 presidential election.

Ms Karua was also minister during the notorious police raid on the Standard newspaper, the Artur brothers saga that humiliated the nation, and the Anglo-Leasing corruption scandal. However, as an opposition politician, Martha Karua has bravely defended the Constitution.

Uhuru Kenyatta avoided the sticky issue of how much land the Kenyatta family owns. A recent report by the Kenya Land Alliance listed his family, the Moi and Kibaki families as the biggest landowners in Kenya. Unsubstantiated reports claim that the Kenyatta family owns land that equates to a whole administrative province.

Instead of taking the opportunity to fully address this issue, Uhuru kept insisting that any land he and his family own, was bought on a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis.

When he was pushed on the ICC question in the first debate, Uhuru claimed that it was a personal challenge, and he saw no problem with attending trial while running the country. Of course, he avoided discussing the constitutional, economic and moral questions that will confront the country should he win.

Odinga’s answer to the molasses plant issue was not satisfactory, and failed to clear suspicions surrounding its acquisition. That notwithstanding, Odinga was the only one who, in closing during the first debate, articulated an ideological position, analysing the two opposed ideologies that have underpinned the post-Independence history of Kenya.

On such occasions, Odinga never fails — to the discomfort of the former Kanu elite — to revisit the history of torture and detention under Kanu, and that party’s policies that dispossessed the poor. For many anxious to protect the gains of the new Constitution, Odinga represents the last stand against a return of Kanu to power in whatever party guise.

In the second debate, Musalia Mudavadi failed to make amends for his poor showing during the first. Some had thought that the debate setting suited his strengths. But the presumed debating skills were not in evidence.

A dour politician even on the campaign trail, Mudavadi looked, on both occasions, like a man who would give all his money, however obtained, to be somewhere else.

But it was the second debate that exposed his soft Kanu-days underbelly. He rambled around the Goldenberg and Anglo-Leasing corruption scandals, before settling for a look that betrayed a yearning for the green hills of Western Province.

Professor Kiyiapi, given the expectations, did not perform well in the first debate. But he was forceful and eloquent in the second. He defended himself well on the missing free primary school funds. He created the impression of a thoughtful and caring man.

Peter Kenneth gave the impression of a man who could run a clean and efficient government, albeit one devoid of boldness and innovation. His closing statement in the first debate was eloquent and powerful.

In the first debate, Paul Muite failed to live up to his reputation as a thoughtful and eloquent lawyer. He even sounded naïve on the question of how to resolve the Migingo Island dispute between Kenya and Uganda.

But he redeemed his reputation in the second. He placed the land question in a historical context.

The teacher Mohammed Dida came out as a joker in the first debate, but he was a lot more serious in the second debate, and won many admirers. He presented a refreshing voice. He reminded us of forgotten values in our politics — honesty and sincerity.

The debates may not have swayed us either way. But they were important for two reasons.

First, they showed that politics should be a competition of ideas. Second, that the opponents of our preferred candidate are human and Kenyan, and not ogres intent on destroying our tribes.

Tee Ngugi is a social and political commentator based in Nairobi